arXiv:2608.22512v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous multi-agent systems nowadays act in finance, software supply chains, and security operations. Already, the first largely AI-orchestrated int...
arXiv:2608. 11274v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The dominant paradigm treats AI safety as a property to be instilled during model training via RLHF, DPO, or Constitutional AI.
arXiv:2606. 02282v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Orchestrating Large Language Models into Multi-Agent Systems (LLM-MAS) has unlocked remarkable reasoning capabilities, yet emergent failures and hallucinations that resist characterisation block their deployment in safety-critical domains -- a gap made legally untenable by emerging AI regulation.
arXiv:2604. 05485v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM agents call tools, query databases, delegate tasks, and trigger external side effects.
arXiv:2606. 14589v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agent systems increasingly run as long-lived autonomous runtimes: scheduling jobs, calling tools, maintaining memory, and pushing results to humans.
arXiv:2607. 02586v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Governance frameworks ask AI providers and auditors for documented evaluation evidence, and perturbation-based construct-validity audits are a common form of that evidence.
arXiv:2602. 13213v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Commercial insurance underwriting is a labor-intensive process that requires manual review of extensive documentation to assess risk and determine policy pricing.
arXiv:2608. 05490v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous agents now carry out entire data analyses, selecting cohorts, joining tables, and fitting models with little step-by-step supervision.
arXiv:2607. 19292v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios.
The paper introduces a framework for evaluating AI systems that not only checks final labels but also tracks the reasoning behind them through three core sources—grounds, norms, and authority—forming an eight-cell counterfactual judgment cube. It defines minimal source replacement sets, called judgment receipts, to explain changes in verdicts and provides certification cost bounds for black-box evaluators. The authors present ReasonBench, a benchmark with 19,520 cases, and demonstrate that while high standard accuracy can mask robustness issues, receipt accuracy reveals significant gaps in reasoning consistency across different models.
arXiv:2606. 18021v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems deployed in legal workflows hallucinate at rates that aggregate metrics report at ~52%, but this average conceals where errors concentrate and in which direction they run, leaving compliance officers without an actionable signal for trustworthy deployment.
arXiv:2607. 09682v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems are increasingly used to assist consequential decisions in regulated domains such as auditing, finance, and healthcare.